What would you be willing to accept visually…

Polygonal_Sprite

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
…To speed up development cycles, get rid of microtransactions/dlc/f2p and to lower prices?

Basic 3D at 720p -

PS1 level - $40. New games from developers every single year.

More polished 3D at 1080p -

PS2 level - $50. New games every two years.

Complex 3D at 1440p -

PS3/4 level - $60. New games every three years.

Industry leading real time 3D at 4k -

PS5 level - $70. New game every five to six years.
 
Don't see why we should scale back on resolution lol.

I think I'd be fine with PS2 graphics tbh, specially if they look like FF XII or Valkyrie Profile II.
 
Atari level every month.

Joking Just Kidding GIF
 
Last edited:
Compare Cyberpunk 2077's facial animation and staging and lighting to Starfield. Once a new standard is set, that's the standard.
 
TintoConCasera said:
Don't see why we should scale back on resolution lol.

I think I'd be fine with PS2 graphics tbh, specially if they look like FF XII or Valkyrie Profile II.
Click to expand...
Extremely high resolutions like 1440p/4k often just shows off visual imperfections and limitations of low geometry Worlds with low resolution textures in PS1/2 level games imo.
 
The Walking Dead Easy Peasy GIF


Have you guys seen Ghost of Tsushima running on PS5? Gimme PS4 games running at 4k60 (or 120) every 3 or 4 years.
 
Last edited:
People go on about this all the time but everyone has more games than they can possibly play, so what's the problem, exactly?

Yes games take longer, but the industry is way bigger, so there are still loads of brilliant games coming out all the time. In fact, the dev cycles probably reflect that fact. They haven't just grown independent of market conditions, you know.
 
Shadow of the colossus HD (not the blueprint remake) and God of War 2 HD still look good to this day.

I could take that PS2 level of fidelity at 1080p indefinitely, especially if it meant cheaper and quicker to make games.
 
Last edited:
diffusionx said:
Compare Cyberpunk 2077's facial animation and staging and lighting to Starfield. Once a new standard is set, that's the standard.
Click to expand...
Yet the most popular games in the World right now - League of Legends, Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox, GTA V, Counter-Strike, Overwatch 2, WoW, Valorant, Genshin… visually could all be down ported to run on PS3 level hardware lol.

This isn't about them being multiplayer or F2P. It's about the masses being accepting of a visual level from the PS3 era. The truth is 90% of consumers don't care about games pushing visual fidelity. The numbers don't lie.
 
Last edited:
Even as an exercise I don't get it. I don't want to "get rid" of anything, development times is none of my concern, I just buy and play good game I enjoy.

I'm not even remotely close to find the time to play all the games I want to play, so to me it seems like the system of supply and demand works pretty well.
 
nemiroff said:
Even as an exercise I don't get it. I don't want to "get rid" of anything, development times is none of my concern, I just buy and play good game I enjoy.

I'm not even remotely close to find the time to play all the games I want to play, so to me it seems like the system of supply and demand works pretty well.
Click to expand...
Development time is an issue for every studio not named Insomniac though.

For example if you chose PS3/4 we would have just had our second full game from Naughty Dog right now. As is we will have a single game from them over a single six year generation. If that's enough for you then fine.

No one is arguing there aren't enough games. It's more you would get more quality games from your favourite genre / developer versus what we have now due to a lowering of visual fidelity.
 
Polygonal_Sprite said:
Did you not pay attention to the amount of dev houses that didn't make it into HD development?

HD art requires more time to develop. The higher the resolution the more development time for art assets is needed.
Click to expand...
All bullshit from devs. PC have HD resolutions since the 90's and games also had "super low res" assets.
 
Polygonal_Sprite said:
Yet the most popular games in the World right now - League of Legends, Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox, GTA V, Counter-Strike, Overwatch 2, WoW, Valorant, Genshin… visually could all be down ported to run on PS3 level hardware lol.

This isn't about them being multiplayer or F2P. It's about the masses being accepting of a visual level from the PS3 era. The truth is 90% of consumers don't care about games pushing visual fidelity. The numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...
That's why I mentioned Starfield. One reason why it was so disappointing was because it looked so old and outdated.

If we are talking about game speed and output and all that... GTA V came out in what, 2013? And it's not like that game's success told Rockstar to cool it with the production values or level of detail with GTA6. There have been like four official releases of Counterstrike since 1999.

Obviously if you are building a gaashit you want it to run on as many platforms and hardware as possible, but not every game is a gaashit thankfully.
 
Polygonal_Sprite said:
Development time is an issue for every studio not named Insomniac though.

For example if you chose PS3/4 we would have just had our second full game from Naughty Dog right now. As is we will have a single game from them over a single six year generation. If that's enough for you then fine.

No one is arguing there aren't enough games. It's more you would get more quality games from your favourite genre / developer versus what we have now due to a lowering of visual fidelity.
Click to expand...
Naughty Dog's problem is that they wasted years and tens of millions of dollars on a failed gaashit. Not that their production values are too high. TLOU2 was a $200M+ game. It was top tier in basically everything at the time it came out in terms of production values, and there is no reason to think ND would have said, "ok that's cool, no need to push this stuff we pushed for this game further next time, we're good".. That's just not the way this works.
 
Last edited:
Unreal engine 5 every year, companies have 3 development teams of a 1000 people to put out high quality games annually.
 
This was done in 6 days by one person. Graphics are not the main reason games are taking forever to make. It's devs who want to make everything 50-100 hours long.

 
I'd be ok if visuals were at the PS4 level and all this extra power was used for RTGI, AI, Physics etc instead. UE5 games using just Lumen are generally fine for me.
 
I don't need complex high detailed 3D rendering in every game. I'd be cool if many would achieve a cool coherent art style they often use in cover and/or box arts. Sometimes the simpler the visuals the higher the interactive clarity in some games, and objects I'm supposed to find or otherwise interact with are more visible and don't blend in (too much) with the surroundings; so has some benefits.


TintoConCasera said:
Don't see why we should scale back on resolution lol.
Click to expand...
Yep, this. Even if the game won't offer 4k textures it benefits from higher resolutions (e.g. image clarity, motion stability, increased image sharpness when TAA or other AA solutions are being used). We don't need blurry images on top of simpler 3D objects and general renderings if it doesn't suit the general art style (like Vampire Survivor and such).
 
PS2+, I'll take that level of complexity with improved texture quality, filtering and lighting. 1080-1440p with decent AA and stable performance. Spend the rest of the time on game design.
 
Last edited:
PS2 graphics with "cheap" modern features like widescreen, high resolutions and a ray tracing toggle would be absolutely fine in my book. A good game is a good game. A turd remains a turd no matter how good the graphics are.
 
Depends on art direction. I would say mid-PS4 level is the point of diminishing returns. I think a double dip to shorter games (mid 20s for a full length adventure, 10 to 15 for something replayable) in combination with topping out in visual fidelity where we currently are, that is probably the best compromise. FF7R to me is the pinnacle of what I'd care about visually, and I had no problems with it taking a slight step backward for Rebirth as opportunity cost that allowed a huge game like that to be created. If you take the same approach and scale it down to smaller scope games, it should not be a problem for most devs. And we'd still see powerhouse displays of the latest tech, but they would be special because they're fewer and further in between.
 
I'm fine with Ps3/Ps4 era with new games every 3-4 years.
Make everything 60fps.
Native 1440p-4K (depending on visual complexity)
 
Polygonal_Sprite said:
…To speed up development cycles, get rid of microtransactions/dlc/f2p and to lower prices?

Basic 3D at 720p -

PS1 level - $40. New games from developers every single year.

More polished 3D at 1080p -

PS2 level - $50. New games every two years.

Complex 3D at 1440p -

PS3/4 level - $60. New games every three years.

Industry leading real time 3D at 4k -

PS5 level - $70. New game every five to six years.
Click to expand...
PS2 levels means MGS2/3 which still holds up now. I would take that at 1080p with a huge focus on systems, a.i etc any day
 
I know, everyone but me hated it back then, but I would like to have the same episode model as the Hitman remake of 2016.
Just give me one new level every month. This is perfect for my small time budget and keeps me interested and hyped for the next month.
 
I want all devs deported to adeptus mechanicus facilities on Mars, crunching endlessly to churn out games pushing the industry boundaries yearly to please their corporate overlords.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom